fbpx

Why Scalia’s Originalism Trumps “Original Intent”

Modern legal originalism evolved dramatically over the four decades of its renewed life in public debate. The speed of that evolution sometimes leaves proponents as well as opponents gasping for breath. Yet the evolution of originalism from Edwin Meese’s “original intentions” to Antonin Scalia’s “textualism” can imply different, even diametrically opposite, answers to the same legal questions.

While both can legitimately claim to be “originalism,” intentionalism and textualism forward mutually exclusive interpretive methodologies. As Scalia wrote in his 1997 book, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, “What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended.”

One does not need to look far to examples of the different outcomes implied by the two species of originalism. For example, in answering the question in The Slaughterhouse Cases whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause applies to white butchers in Louisiana, Justice Miller, framed the majority argument for denying the butchers the Amendment’s protection by appealing to original intentions for the Amendment:

The most cursory glance at these articles discloses a unity of purpose, when taken in connection with the history of the times, which cannot fail to have an important bearing on any question of doubt concerning their true meaning. Nor can such doubts, when any reasonably exist, be safely and rationally solved without a reference to that history….  It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. . . .  [I]n any fair and just construction of any section or phrase of these amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said was the pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the process of continued addition to the Constitution, until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished as far as constitutional law can accomplish it.

In their dissents, Justices Swayne and Bradley both objected to the intimation in Miller’s argument that intentions trump a fair reading of text. Swayne wrote,

The language employed [by the Fourteenth Amendment] is unqualified in its scope. There is no exception in its terms, and there can be properly none in their application. By the language “citizens of the United States” was meant all such citizens; and by “any person” was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes, and conditions of men.

Similarly, Bradley:

It is futile to argue that none but persons of the African race are intended to be benefited by this amendment. They may have been the primary cause of the amendment, but its language is general, embracing all citizens, and I think it was purposely so expressed.

I want to use this distinction in forms of originalism to refine Paul Moreno’s passing comment on originalism in his fine book review of Justice Jackson’s unpublished opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. There he observed, “it is clear on originalist grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to prohibit segregated public schools (or racial intermarriage)” needs to be refined by whether originalism is understood as intentions or text.

The observation is certainly correct with respect to originalism as intentionalism, or originalism understood as expected application (in Jack Balkin’s phrase) of the drafters. The evidence is mainly circumstantial, nonetheless compelling. The issue did not arise directly in congressional debate on the Amendment. Nonetheless, indirect evidence about Congress’ intent in drafting the Amendment seems strong.

For example, in his speeches of June 5 and 6, 1866 on the then-proposed Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Howe of Wisconsin, a strong supporter of the Amendment, noted the recent provision by Florida for the education of the state’s black children. In arguing that Florida’s policy response was a “crime,” however, Howe did not even note in passing that Florida established a racially segregated school system. He objected, rather, that the state required both whites and blacks to pay taxes to support schools for white children, while it imposed taxes to pay for schools for black children on blacks alone.

If as strong a supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment as Howe did not suggest the Amendment would forbid segregated schools, it is almost certainly true hardly anyone else thought at the time that the Amendment required integration.

Yet Howe’s (and other’s) thoughts, intentions or expectations are irrelevant for textualists originalists. Scalia’s comment about statutory history applies equally to constitutional history: “The statute is what Congress voted on, not what some committee member said he thought it meant. I don’t care what he thought it meant, since the rest of the Congress didn’t know what he thought it meant when they voted for the law.” Textualism distinguishes between original expected application of a provision with its original meaning.

When originalism is understood as textualism rather than intent, it’s no stretch for originalists fairly to read the Fourteenth Amendment to forbid racially segregated schools. Indeed, it fairly falls out of the text – a case of its authors writing better than they knew. And the implication need not rest on the Equal Protection clause alone. Fair readings of the liberty guarantee of the Due Process Clause (per the Supreme Court’s Fifth Amendment Due Process decision in Bolling v. Sharpe, which is not quite the reverse incorporation decision it is often styled to be, but that for another column) and the Privileges or Immunities clause would seem to provide reasonable textualist bases for striking down racially segregated government schools.

Indeed, the irony is that an originalist qua textualist reading of the Fourteenth Amendment can provide a firmer foundation for the outcome in Brown v. Board of Education than the Court did in its actual opinion in the case.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 10, 2018 at 07:33:33 am

[…] Read more[…] […]

read full comment
Image of Why Scalia’s Originalism Trumps “Original Intent” | Top 100 Blog Review
Why Scalia’s Originalism Trumps “Original Intent” | Top 100 Blog Review
on January 10, 2018 at 09:58:52 am

“The statute is what Congress voted on, not what some committee member said he thought it meant. I don’t care what he thought it meant, since the rest of the Congress didn’t know what he thought it meant when they voted for the law.”

Which is why the rights to abortion and SSM are indisputably protected. But even if there was any dispute as to Madison's intent, it is settled in the congressional record.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 10, 2018 at 10:51:37 am

'Splain yourself!

Employing the congressional Record would seem to imply that it is acceptable to search once again for intent. This, on the surface, would appear to be contradictory.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 10, 2018 at 10:57:38 am

The question is, did the original intent of the 14th amendment allow for the state to tax black families for white high schools as the court ruled in Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899) [The Richmond County tax, which supported high schools open to only white students, was legal. ]

read full comment
Image of Scalia's ghost
Scalia's ghost
on January 10, 2018 at 13:57:01 pm

Rule is that if the text is clear, you go with the text. lf not, you look to the legislative history. Lots of case law on this.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 10, 2018 at 16:06:54 pm

Yep, am aware of this BUT I guess the question is how *selective* ought one to be when reviewing the history as it can, and often is both confused and contradictory. Ought we not also to look at similar case / related case law / precedent of the time?

Just askin' - as an example, if one looks at Congressional Record on the 14th, depending upon what day you search and whether you review Bingham's comments or Howe's you may arrive at a different conclusion.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 10, 2018 at 17:47:47 pm

"Yep, am aware of this BUT I guess the question is how *selective* ought one to be when reviewing the history as it can, and often is both confused and contradictory."

When interpreting an ambiguous statue with ambiguous legislative history
(1) always err on the side of liberty,
(2) always err on the side of the defendant,
(3) declare it "void for vagueness"

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
-FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 2007

"Although the rule of lenity is not to be applied where to do so would conflict with the implied or expressed intent of Congress, it provides a time-honored interpretive guideline when the congressional purpose is unclear."
-Liparota v. United States, 1985

"A conviction fails to comport with due process if the statute under which it is obtained fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement."
-United States v. Williams, 2008

read full comment
Image of Jacques Scalia
Jacques Scalia
on January 10, 2018 at 18:05:12 pm

So let's say your taxes pay for both black and white, and both male and female public schools. If only blacks paid for black schools and only whites paid for white schools, the white schools would be better funded and they wouldn't be [separate but] "equal". So if everyone's taxes pay for everyone's schools, shouldn't anyone be able to go to any school? Shouldn't anyone be able to use any building that their tax dollars are paying for? Isn't that equal treatment under the law? Wouldn't it be unfair if black tax dollars paid for white schools (cause more of them were needed) but they couldn't attend those schools?

Or let's say the blacks were all put in one school at three times the rate whites were put in schools (600 blacks per black elementary, 200 whites per elementary). You could make it so the blacks didn't need as much money because they're all at one school, whereas the whites are at three different schools around the city. So they need more money to keep up three separate schools. So that's why the blacks help pay for the white schools--cause there's more of them, even though there's the same amount of kids.

read full comment
Image of Brown
Brown
on January 10, 2018 at 20:39:50 pm

Of Course, Mr. Gabe, Alana ignores that if the unborn child is a Human Person (and it is unquestionably, whether by embryology or religious measure) Abortion does not win the day under the 14th Amendment.

"[B]y “any person” was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. " - nor was distinction made on level of development.

Only folks of Alana's ilk make such a distinction; oh, and don't forget, their humane rationale that abortion is preventing the child from starving to death and the mother from a life of poverty and patriarchial opression because of us bigots who only love the rule of law when it suits our needs.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 11, 2018 at 09:51:25 am

Jacques/Alana/Dawg:

I AM aware of all those *rules* and actually agree.

My point is that no matter how you slice it, when reviewing "history", one may still be somewhat selective and that the level and nature of that *selectivity* may be a response to the initial conclusion that one has already drawn.

simple as that!

read full comment
Image of The unnecessary Marshal but proper
The unnecessary Marshal but proper
on January 11, 2018 at 10:23:51 am

Paul Binotto's ignored comment is the most important:

At the very outset, just before starting the first oral argument in Roe, Chief Justice Burger asked (more or less in these words as I recall): "Are we talking about a person here? Because if we are this case is over (constitutionally.")

We and the Court really knew the answer then, but , like threatened ostriches, we flattened our heads to the ground.

That was 1971-73. Today, the science is indisputable , so there are far fewer ostriches ignoring this REALLY "Inconvenient Truth.'' But, today, there are just as many, if not more, "see-no-evil" monkeys as there were when Roe gave birth to the culture of death.

Saint John Paul predicted all of this. He was a terrific prophet, especially on the moral effects of history's two greatest cultures of death: abortion and Soviet Communism.

I quote from Pope John Paul's Evangelium Vitae, The Gospel of Life:

"The end result of this (legalized prenatal infanticide) is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life."

Yep: the Fourteenth Amendment on its face (''living constitution" or no, with or without ''original intent" or Scalia's textual originalism) countenaces Equal Protection of life, state police powers and federalism notwithstanding.

Then and now, all the Court's liberals (and the "human jump ball," Justice Kennedy) got that all wrong, and two of its greatest conservatives, Justices Rehnquist and Scalia, got that only half right.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 11, 2018 at 11:01:14 am

Excellent remarks and reminders, Timothy! I share your view that JPII was indeed prophetic; a mystic, too, I think.

I am of the (similar/same) opinion (as you allude to when you say, "only half right"), that while Justices Rehnquist and Scalia may have come down on the right side of history, (and of life), they missed their respective chances to make history by changing it - I won't go into why here in these increasingly hostile precincts;, suffice it to say, convincing arguments have been offered as the basis of my own conclusion.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 11, 2018 at 11:04:28 am

Timothy:

Here's a thought:

How many times have we heard from the "Living" types that COTUS must change to reflect our different (and presumably) better understanding of politics, morals, etc. We see this in the courts *new* understanding of what constitutes "commerce" (as only one example), or the need for controlling externalities (even Randy Barnett succumbs to this one) such as cross state pollution.

Funny, that the *need* for this adjustment of COTUS to reflect the new "science" NEVER countenances the new knowledge concerning human fetal development or the definition, legal and medical, of what constitutes a person.

As i have said before, the Black Robes certainly enjoy their ability to exercise *selectivity*.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 11, 2018 at 11:06:28 am

Oops, I forgot:

If "gender" as humans have always known it can "change' to reflect the prejudices of the "Living" types, why cannot the definition of "person."

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 11, 2018 at 11:42:51 am

And Oh, BTW, here is another approach; one that takes into account related case law:

http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2018/01/john-greil-second-best-originalism-and-regulatory-takingsmichael-ramsey.html

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 11, 2018 at 14:47:57 pm

Yes, you're right, Gabe: ''Selectively" construing the constitution as a "living organism" means 1) that government always grows rather than shrinks, becoming more, not less, intrusive of liberty and 2) that the ever-growing constitution becomes ever-more conducive of death, not life, as its expansion more resembles a liver inflamed with metastasizing cancer cells than a womb bearing a fertilized egg.

In either case, the selective interpretative "change" wrought by the 5 black-robed tyrants of a "living constitution" is seldom, if ever, vital or enhancing but, much more often than not, destructive of liberty, obstructive of the pursuit of happiness (joy) and deadly for the right to life.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 11, 2018 at 17:36:30 pm

And, *sanity* I would add as evidenced by this little morsel of modern day ideological idiocy:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/how-to-halve-the-cost-of-residential-solar-in-the-us?__twitter_impression=true

How can one take these people seriously?

I have a recurring thought:

When I see all these baby boomer womens rights protesters, I am reminded that these are the self same hysterics that one observes if they view a film of the Beatles Shea Stadium concert - mindless then - mindless now.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 11, 2018 at 17:54:00 pm

I'll accept all that...as long as we also understand that both originalism and original intent leave no room for Federal involvement in primary education.
I'll be more impressed with discussions of the fine points of originalist interpretations of the Constitution when we actually see the actual use of the Constitution changed back to what it was meant to be: a short list of what the Federal gov't is allowed to do; rather than what most pretend now that it is: a short list of things any level of gov't is NOT allowed to do.

read full comment
Image of Jeremy Klein
Jeremy Klein
on January 11, 2018 at 17:58:12 pm

Creepy. The insanity is without end:
https://www.simplemost.com/schools-adopting-no-best-friends-policy/

I tell you, these people are deadly, not funny.
We used to laugh at their silliness. Now we see that they are not joking or silly but dead serious and operating according to plan and ahead of schedule, with the major media, the public teachers unions (who mold the brains and views of all our children and grandchildren) and major media and the Democrat Party and myriad billionaires backing their every move.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 11, 2018 at 18:19:57 pm

Coding & permitting have become like licensing boards, and in my opinion, to 1) limit competition and 2) protect trade unions from do-it-yourselfers. Oh, and of course, as additional source of municipal income.

"No best friends policy" - Aye -Yi-Yi. What, NO best friends!? WE'RE all best friends...Mark Zuckerberg will never stand for it! Or maybe he's behind it...

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 12, 2018 at 03:28:35 am

PB: "Alana ignores that if the unborn child is a Human Person"

"Personhood" is a legal status. A fetus didn't have it in 1791/1868, nor it is acquired simply because you think it ought to be.

Hypocrites! "We want judges to be originalists and textualists" ... except when we don't like the outcome.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 04:37:04 am

T: "Yep: the Fourteenth Amendment on its face (”living constitution” or no, with or without ”original intent” or Scalia’s textual originalism) countenaces Equal Protection of life, state police powers and federalism notwithstanding."

You ... are A LAWYER?!? Yah, right.

The 14Am doesn't protect "life." lt protects "persons." "Personhood" is a legal term of art, including both the born and the incorporated. And there is zero indication that they intended to extend that protection to the fertilized zygote.

Remember that neither the common and canon law outlawed abortion before "quickening"--the essential holding of Roe. lf you don't like the law, there is a remedy: pass an amendment declaring the fetus a person (Good luck; you lost in MS by 50 points).

l find it amusing that an aspiring theocrat such as yourself would cite to a dead ayatollah, but ignore pronouncements by "God's chosen voice on Earth." And no doubt, even that reliance is subjective.

We called that "cafeteria Catholicism."

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 04:51:40 am

That should have been "nor." Sloppy editing. Mea culpa.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 05:07:27 am

Why do you people try to pretend that the Civil War Amendments never happened?

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 07:53:37 am

THE BEST LINE EVER: "The 14Am doesn’t protect “life.” lt protects “persons.” - HA-HA-HA!!!

Protects persons from what Alana!?? HA-HA-HA!!! You're such a robot, little miss troll. God Bless your little heart.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 12, 2018 at 07:59:27 am

HA-HA-HA- God Bless your heart Alana, you are such a programed little troll. Just like a little repeater gun.

Do you think you've changed anybody's mind here, yet, Alana? Go to bed, maybe tomorrow.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 12, 2018 at 08:35:59 am

Alana Bot writes at 4AM, so perhaps that's why it's always so cranky. Lack of sleep might make even a bot "bitch, bark and growl." But I really think stubbornness is the answer. Alana Bot simply insists on being the Peter Pan of web blog commenters:

"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me,
Not I,
Not me!
So there!"

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 12, 2018 at 08:57:34 am

PB: "You’re such a robot,"

Says one who believes that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself--because some woman in 14th Century garb drilled it into him as a kid?

LOL! Physician, heal thyself!

By its terms, the Constitution only protects the rights of persons: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Even life can be taken from you, in accordance with law.

lt doesn't protect polar bears, unicorns, or the fetus. Whether it should is not a question the law tries to answer.

Law tends to be robotic.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 09:14:35 am

"When you don't have the law, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, argue the law. When you don't have either, attack your opponent."

Pooooooooor Timothy. A lawyer would know what l'm talking about.

l didn't write the Constitution, or any of its Amendments. lt says what it says. “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” is pellucid. COTUS only protects the rights of "persons," and this term of legal art was well-defined in Anglo-American law.

"So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Gal. 4:16 (NASB).

Seems to me that you are projecting--doing a passable Peter Pan impression. The law says what it says, but you don't like the outcome. So, you throw a tantrum:

“I’ll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me,
Not I,
Not me!
A fetus lS a person!
So there!”

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 09:23:05 am

I've heard this line, " believe that God had to sacrifice himself"( by the way which does not accurately reflect Christian belief)from lawdog before. Is this lawdog writing as Alena? If so how's that knee mending? I'm still praying for you lawdog. U2 Alena

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 12, 2018 at 09:24:59 am

l agree. Needed a freakin' permit to replace a water heater, and the county had a different standard than the city.

And who is behind this attempt to stifle solar? The usual suspects: oil and coal. RWers. https://www.ecowatch.com/fbi-arizona-public-2467980589.html

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 10:57:58 am

Alana--

The civil war amendments prevent discrimination and segregation, they do not require forced busing or affirmative action. Nor did they add public education to the enumerated powers of congress--or for that matter, the 14th amendment didn't even explicitly repeal the 10th amendment; it merely "incorporated" the first nine amendments against the states.

read full comment
Image of Bakke's Lament
Bakke's Lament
on January 12, 2018 at 12:21:47 pm

Famous Jack Chick parody. Simple, but effective. Everyone uses it. Standard issue in the atheist toolbox.

PB: "does not accurately reflect Christian belief"

Huh?!?

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

What's left of Catholicism, anyway? No Adam and Eve. No original sin. Your own Pope has admitted that l don't need Jesus to be "saved."

But l'll bite. What is your RATlONAL argument for your belief? 1 Peter 3:15.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 12, 2018 at 12:31:30 pm

LawDog, it is you! You really had me fooled, you old, sly, well, Dog, you! The cold, damp weather must be causing your knee to ache; that would explain how cranky you are lately. God Bless!

Oh, and to answer your, "Huh?!?" Christians do not believe God HAD to do anything, most especially, sacrifice Himself, but he did, even for old stubborn dogs like yourself.

Oh, one last thing before I forget, to answer your other question, "What’s left" - the only thing that's left is your, "Fiat". I'll keep praying for that, LawDog.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 12, 2018 at 15:07:16 pm

Well they did! BUT:

From one such as yourself, who only yesterday suggested that we check the congressional Record, you may be surprised that the architect of the 14th, Sen James Bingham, EXPLICITY stated that it would not curtail State police powers (my shorthand for Binghams speeches) to the extent that the Black Robes have done.

Then again, even you will agree that the Black Robes have been rather selective, albeit more inclusive, over time. Judge made COTUS is not really what any of us want, or is it?

read full comment
Image of Binghams bossom
Binghams bossom
on January 13, 2018 at 07:56:07 am

Seems as if everyone around here is "LawDog."

lt's 80 and sunny here, and you guys are the angry ones. Poor babies! COTUS doesn't say what you want it to say.

Your god is like every other tribal god of that era. The priests keep the people in line with threats of eternal torment. Your Pope has abandoned that idea.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 13, 2018 at 08:04:41 am

Bless you, Alana-LawDog.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 13, 2018 at 09:15:53 am

Alana Bot's most recent "bitch, bark and growl" is, once again, at Christianity. This morning's "Alana Bot execration" is FROM a place (according to the Bot) where "it’s 80 and sunny here," from whence the Bot speaks OF "eternal torment."

Divina Commedia for sure addresses "eternal torment," but I don't recall Dante's mentioning modest temperatures in the Inferno, certainly not in Fahrenheit.

So, I surmise that this morning, at the time of Alana Bot's characteristically sullen, verbal wrath, the Bot was just beneath the gates of Hell ("Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here") where ambient temperature is normal but was about to descend to the Fifth Circle, reserved for those of Wrath and Sullenness.

I find Dantean irony in the fact that to each of Alana Bot's verbal crucifixions the Bot's most-targeted Christian, Paul Binotto, responds with Matthew 5:39:

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 13, 2018 at 18:01:52 pm

Timothy appears to be an object lesson on how unprotected sex with a priest can destroy a boy's life. Pain oozes from his prose.

One is left to wonder where a sane man would find “bitch, bark and growl” in my brief and narrow post. PB fantasizes that "cold, damp weather" might affect my mood ... but even if it could, l am a long way from the nearest Alberta Clipper.

Paul can't respond on the merits, but Timothy's response bounces off his padded walls:

T: "Divina Commedia for sure addresses “eternal torment,” but I don’t recall Dante’s mentioning modest temperatures in the Inferno, certainly not in Fahrenheit."

Why would any sane man place any credence in A POEM???

T: "So, I surmise that this morning, at the time of Alana Bot’s characteristically sullen, verbal wrath"

Words don't even seem to have meaning in Timothy's padded cell. All l have said here is that COTUS doesn't yield the results you want, and that his rambling comments outed him as a buffoon.

T: "the Bot was just beneath the gates of Hell (“Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here”) where ambient temperature is normal but was about to descend to the Fifth Circle, reserved for those of Wrath and Sullenness."

That is just plain weird. And as l said, "Your god is like every other tribal god of that era. The priests keep the people in line with threats of eternal torment." But Pope Benedict shot that dogma while he was still Pope:

"Catholics can no longer believe that all Muslims, Hindus, atheists and so on are going to hell. We have this on the authority of the former Pope Benedict XVI, who gave a long interview a couple of years ago that has only just surfaced in English. Benedict’s view must be definitive, not just because he was a pope, but because he was a notably conservative one."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/22/pope-benedict-xvi-heaven-non-catholics-church

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 13, 2018 at 18:25:08 pm

The rules are both old and well-established.

lt is “a monstrous absurdity in a well organized government, that there should be no remedy, although a clear and undeniable right should be shown to exist.” Kendall v. United States, 37 U.S. 524, 624 (1838). Moreover, if “there be an admitted wrong, the courts will look far to supply a remedy.” DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 176-77 (1901).

The courts have plenty of leeway in fashioning remedies, and if forced busing is the only practical remedy, the courts have implicit authority to order it.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 13, 2018 at 18:33:47 pm

l'm no fan of judicial freelancing, such as the absurd Alsup ruling on DACA. But l will keep my own counsel wrt what Bingham's speeches mean and their significance. When you look at the legislative history, you have to consider it as a whole.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 13, 2018 at 20:09:36 pm

Alana, I answered your question. You said, "God had to sacrifice Himself" and I said you are wrong, that's not what Christians believe at all; God did not have to do anything. Beyond that, you haven't uttered a meritorious sentence in what it is it now, six weeks, since you've begun your ranting diatribe, that I find worth the time or trouble to respond to. You show me zero respect as a fellow human being and you want me to respond with merit to you?

I get it, you don't like me, and you don't like my Catholic faith. Or, that I express it, or as you would say, "force my religious beliefs on the rest of us". You mean in the way you have been forcing your religious beliefs on the rest of us for weeks now. No mistaking, your progressivism, relativism, post-modernism, what ever ism you identify with, is a religion as much a mine, and a whole lot more hateful. And, its too bad, too, because you obviously have a good mind, just not the heart to compliment it with.

You're an angry, hateful, person, or at least everything about your writing says you are; perhaps you are an Alana, who sounds an awfully lot like LawDog, or perhaps you are a LawDog. You make the same arguments (often verbatim) as to make me very suspicious that that is your true identity. Perhaps its just you all recite from the same prayer book, I can't say. It good that you are in a warm spot; but doubly sad that you should then be so angry.

What do you hope to gain by your comments here, aside from annoying a lot of people (which is probably your primary goal, or just icing on the cake for a hateful, pathetic creature that you are)? - it (the hate) comes out in your every post.

Do you think a single thing you've written has changed anyone's thoughts or opinions? If anything, it has only made them more assured of their own position (I know I am) because of the obvious hate you tender you don't make your position seem a very attractive one to possess.

So, how do I respond to some one who doesn't like me or have any respect for me? My only response to someone like you can only ever be, "Bless you".

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 13, 2018 at 20:36:50 pm

But if forced busing violates no discrimination (by taking race into account which is the very thing banned by no discrimination), then it can't be a remedy for no discrimination. Just as torturing someone for violating the eighth amendment would be prohibited since it would defeat the entire purpose of the amendment.

"For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
-Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1

"Racial imbalance is not segregation, and the mere incantation of terms like resegregation and remediation cannot make up the difference."
-Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1

read full comment
Image of Colorblind Ally
Colorblind Ally
on January 13, 2018 at 21:18:49 pm

Paul Binotto:

Alana is a troll, a Bot programmed by ideological handlers to sow vitriol and reap destruction on the internet.

Alana Bot detracts, demeans and disrupts, on this site for a certainty (her Crypto-fascist assignment?), and I suspect in everything else she touches in life.

"Bless you" was your consistent manner of responding to Alana Bot's wicked, hateful language. I do not suffer fools, especially self-willed fools filled with hatred and a foul-mouth. So I have routinely mocked Alana Bot and refused to extend her even minimal intellectual respect, as is her just desserts. Others on this site have sought to humor the Bot, I suspect hoping she would just go away like a toothache.

Christian charity is commendable, and patience is often appropriate in dealing with a well-intentioned but wrong-headed person. That is clearly not the case here.

Encouraging a public nuisance is the consequence of extending charity and patience to that which appears to be driven by anti-American ideology and personal malice .

Better to shame, mock, ridicule, scorn and ultimately to avoid it.

Self-respect demands it.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 14, 2018 at 07:42:04 am

Timothy,

You're assessment about Alana is again, of course, right on target.

You see, Alana is employing the tactic of hurling hate, particularly at me it would seem, though I know she is an equal opportunity hater. I have chosen to hurl back at her, hope. So, I bless her.

A little while back I told you the little story about the hungry piggy's who, once full of their momma's milk to their belly's brim, fall asleep. But, I didn't tell you the rest of the story.

So, perhaps, they dream sweet utopian dreams of their handler's tales of one-world - socialist, equal, peaceful, and best of all, ruled by them. So they wake-up happy and secure in their dreams, to be about again, as I said, "pissing on every truth wherever they may find it.

They do this day in and day out, and get fatter and fatter all along the way, until they grow into fully grown, perfectly plumb pigs, the bigger and better to throw their weight around, like the roly-poly little bullies that the are.

Until one day the big truck with the cavernously empty and dark trailer pulls into the barn-yard and swings open its tall narrow doors, and drops it long slippery ramp. And, the little piggy's, now big fat hogs, become alarmed and restless, as they suddenly realize the fate of all little piggy's, when they grow big and fat. And, they also understand for the first time, their momma's milk, like their sweet little dreams, were merely the stuff of lies, preparing and leading to this moment of their final demise.

And, I, sitting here at my little wooden table, will bow over my plate of pork saucage, bacon & eggs, and bless myself, and again bless my food, as I say, "Bless us oh Lord, and these Thy gifts, which we are about to recieve from Thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen".

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 14, 2018 at 08:38:55 am

PB: "I get it, you don’t like me"

What on Earth would make you conclude that? We just happen to disagree on the topics discussed here. Think about it: if l disliked everyone l disagreed with on a topic, l wouldn't have anyone left to like.

PB: "you don’t like my Catholic faith."

l find it objectively ludicrous. When you speak about "being saved," think of what you are being "saved" from. The angry wrath of a sullen god, who has no tolerance, compassion, or impulse control.

You can believe whatever you wish, no matter how irrational or estranged from the facts that might be. What you can't do is insist that others live in accordance with your peculiar superstitions.

PB: "You mean in the way you have been forcing your religious beliefs on the rest of us for weeks now. No mistaking, your progressivism, relativism, post-modernism, what ever ism you identify with, is a religion as much a mine, and a whole lot more hateful."

ROTFL! lf you can't even identify it, l'm probably not pushing it properly.

We can put most of my views in biblical terms. For instance, the biblical proof-text for the morality of progressive taxation is Luke 12:36. As for the liberty of the individual, start at 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23. As for the fetus not having full 'human' status, see Exod. 21:22-23; the directive makes no sense unless this is true.

On abortion, you seem to be under the arrogant conceit that carrying a child to term is, at worst, a minor inconvenience. And being Catholics, you don't mind relegating women to a mean second-class citizenship. You can order women around because your Pope wears a dress? Be honest: lf men had to have abortions, clinics would be as plentiful as Starbucks. See Matt. 7:12.

But even that is beside the point. Our Constitution protects the maximum liberty possible -- including the right of men to marry one another and a woman, to abort a fetus that she does not want to carry to term. We are not an lran-class theocracy, irrespective of how much you apparently desire it. Your perverted superstitions carry no weight.

PB: "You’re an angry, hateful, person, or at least everything about your writing says you are ... hateful, pathetic creature that you are."

This is dishonest rhetoric, and we both know it. You and Timothy can't argue the points without trying to obtain some kind of unfair advantage, and name-calling appears to be your common stock in trade. lf l start calling you a Nazi, will you feel better?

PB: "Do you think a single thing you’ve written has changed anyone’s thoughts or opinions?"

You swore to defend your dogma to the death, and sound like you are too old and fixed in your ways to be open to persuasion. But that does not mean that l might not be able to induce the casual reader to think.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 14, 2018 at 08:51:52 am

An Orwellian coup. Words have no meaning in your world.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 14, 2018 at 09:57:13 am

Alana,

You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the behind like a 2 X 4; you know even less about me.

I am neither too old or too set in my ways to be pursuaded; I have merely lived long-enough to recognize BS when I see & hear it, and you are all BS; at least your ideas are.

I was once as stupid and wrong-headed about life as you are, and probably more liberal. Democrat to the core - big defender of PP and a woman's right to "chose". You have absolutely no so-called "liberal" street creds, that I did not have more of. And, I didn't then, as now, hide behind the safety of a moniker or only a first name.

You know nothing about why I reject abortion, nor can you, your mind is blind, and your heart is hard; or what men would do, unless you are in fact a man. I make no apologies for wanting to protect inncoent life and in defending in word and deed, all life, even yours, which, in my view, is clearly being wasted, and far from innocent.

You insult women, all women, including yourself, if you are in fact a woman, when you suggest having a child, even an unwanted one, relegates them to second class citizens. So spare me your ritious indignation.

Bless you, Alana This is the last I have to say to you - peace.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 14, 2018 at 10:56:44 am

I've been saying for weeks:
1) Alana's abusive verbal behavior and disruptive rhetorical tactics are those of Lenin and Saul Alinsky, whose tactics Obama embraced while learning the art of sociopathic politics and which tactics are Obama's chief legacy to the nation.
2) Today, the political devotees and political practitioners of such destructive tactics are Democrats, some numbers of whom call themselves "Antifa" and claim to be "ant-fascist." But that is a just NewSpeak; it is a lie told by these Democrats for the propaganda purpose of mass political deception. The truth is they are "crypto-fascists," fascists disguised as anti-fascist Democrats. Hence, Alana's abusive rhetoric and disruptive politics, in effect, advances the "Cryptofa" goals of the Democrat Party.
3) And to that end, Alana, in essence, is a pre-programmed (by her university, no doubt) Democrat Party apparatchik, a BOT:
As in ideological roBOT or political BOTulin causing mental/moral/social/cultural BOTulism or BOTched life or the very political BOTtom or the most BOThersome web blog commenter or BOTtomless pit of self-infatuated political vacuity, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseam.

Paul, you wish the BOT "peace."
I ask, "Why BOTher?" There's always a BOT to torment America, and peace is the last thing a BOT wants.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 14, 2018 at 10:57:52 am

Alana:

At times, you remind me of another commenter here at Law / Liberty in that a number of your comments would appear to indicate a tendency to view the world, or at least the "worldview" of those who disagree with you as if they were advocating positions that have long since been abandoned by (in this case) their religion.
As an example, I attended parochial schools in the 1950. I distinctly remember that the teachers DID NOT claim that members of other faiths were doomed to hell and fire and damnation. Also, you appear to believe that religious folks would want to place women in some medieval subordinate status, one where laws of inheritance, suffrage, etc were designed to place women in a subordinate position.

Come now, Dear Missy, this is clearly not the case. While most associations may not live up to YOUR particular notion of "gender equality", clearly they have progressed significantly from the 18th century.
One ought to at least recognize Progress when it is evident and not diminish the importance of such gains as have been made. Moreover, to assert that the mere fact of childbearing is to reduce a woman to second class status is to equate duty, responsibility and parental love with bondage and logically would require that all parents, yours included, would rightfully need to be resentful of their own children.
Is THIS really what you wish to convey? Are you stuck in the 1950's, 1850's, etc?

BTW: I know many people, not of a particularly strong religious attachment, who also oppose abortion, as do I. Can there not be individual human beings who object simply on moral / philosophical grounds - OR must all fit within your peculiar worldview?

Again, these comments diminish your arguments (such as they are).
Try harder, have a smoke and a good sip of Blanton's Bourbon and be nice!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 14, 2018 at 11:04:27 am

Ahhhh, blessed capitalism:

"Weekend update for anybody who's wondering what's been going on. As you can see by the photos, my hands are going through quite a bit. It's very difficult for me to type, it's very difficult for me to text - pretty much anything that doesn't involve hanging out and doing nothing is off the table Yes , I'm bored out of my skull now lol.

As for the medical update, the doctor wants to try different types of chemo - primarily in the idea of extending my life regardless the quality. Most of them look horrible and, I'm sorry, hurting myself just so I can hang out longer in pain sounds like a really bad plan. There is one that I may consider since they finally approved it - pemetrexed - but only if they're willing to do that alone and it looks like they are only willing to do that in combination with something else. I'm not interested if that's the case.

I'm looking at alternative therapies - yes, including marijuana and including resonator technology - but everything cost a bundle and I can only do what I can do. It may come down to keep me comfortable as I leave as the only option I have left. Send out hope but don't hold out hope folks - I'm doing the best I can but the Universe has to cooperate - and so far I'm not seeing much cooperation."

PB: "And, I, sitting here at my little wooden table, will bow over my plate of pork saucage, bacon & eggs, and bless myself, and again bless my food, as I say, “Bless us oh Lord, and these Thy gifts, which we are about to recieve from Thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen”."

Translated, "Thank you, my sadistic pig of a god, for at least not torturing me like that today." A sullen and vicious god, who has no impulse control.

You obviously worship out of sheer terror.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 14, 2018 at 11:05:18 am

"The courts have plenty of leeway in fashioning remedies, and if forced busing is the only practical remedy, the courts have implicit authority to order it."

And again:
1) You go too far
2) This is a view predicated upon a 1950's understanding of the American polity

Just how far, how much leeway do they, or ought they to have.
Take Seattle: It is now unlawful to inquire, when renting homes or apartments, as to the criminal history of a rental applicant. Why, partly due to that Black Robed genius, Justice Kennedy (and other Black Robes, who determined that it was appropriate to consider the *disparate* impact of certain practices upon racial equality. since blacks / minorities, for whatever reason have a higher incidence of criminal offenses, it becomes unlawful discrimination to inquire as to the criminal background of an applicant. Never mind, that the landlord will still be liable in civil court for damages should one of these *unfairly* maligned miscreants happen to commit an offense against one of the landlords other renters - "Equality" it shall be".

Where Dear Missy is THE LIMIT?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 14, 2018 at 11:15:04 am

" A sullen and vicious god, who has no impulse control."

Goodness gracious - are you insane?

Life is both tough AND unfair! Shit happens. To assume that a vicious and vengeful god causes one to have cancer, etc is as groundless as assuming Ancient Aliens wiped out the dinosaurs.
Yet, such an absurd claim (belief? by Missy) is necessary to advance the notion that those people of faith do so only out of terror or fear.

How sophomoric!!!!

Now I am off to a breakfast of bacon, eggs, ( my own version of an Italian scramble, cheese-parmesan, mozzarella AND cheddar, ham and fresh basil).
I thank both the chicken and the pig, the latter of which has indeed made the greater sacrifice, while the former is merely a contributing participant in the celebration.

Yep, a good ole 1950's breakfast, Missy!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 14, 2018 at 11:15:07 am

Gabe wishes for Alana Bot to "Try harder.... and be nice!"

And, despite my wishing it were not so, I say that the moon is not made of green cheese, there is no tooth fairy, if we liked our plan we still couldn't keep it and Nixon was a crook.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 14, 2018 at 11:24:08 am

Simply put, Timothy, because she is starving for it. And, I have it in abundance to share.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 14, 2018 at 12:02:10 pm

I recall that, circa 1993-94, a "vegan" called Rush Limbaugh to complain (indignantly, of course) about humans eating chickens. Rush replied, "Madam, God put chickens on this earth for two reasons, breakfast and dinner."

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 14, 2018 at 15:43:38 pm

I see that another web site which I read, "The Tablet," has imposed a commenter's fee to deter Bots like Alana. I quote a part of their justification:

"But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse)."

Disruption through anonymous verbal abuse is what's going on at Law and Liberty, I'm convinced. And I believe it's reflective of an unofficial but organized and vocal media strategy of the Left to obstruct "civilized and constructive discussion" and "to drag it down with invective (and worse.)"

No "peace'' there, Paul. No "be nice" there, Gabe.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 14, 2018 at 17:33:32 pm

Gabe: "Life is both tough AND unfair! Shit happens. To assume that a vicious and vengeful god causes one to have cancer, etc is as groundless as assuming Ancient Aliens wiped out the dinosaurs"

l don't believe that, but if you believe the Bible, you have to. Your god picks winners and losers. Rom. 9:10-18.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 14, 2018 at 17:38:00 pm

The Tablet - I used to read that site daily and somehow got away from it. It always contain(s)(ed) a lot of very interesting content. The fee-to-comment policy is unfortunate, because it does stifle both good and bad commentary, but I totally understand why they found it necessary to implement.

When I say good and bad content above, I don't mean, good = I agree with it & bad = I don't agree. I mean the differance between mutually respectful exchanges of opposing viewpoints, and nasty & disrespectful jabs like what we've been seeing for weeks now here.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 14, 2018 at 17:42:42 pm

Timothy appears to be an object lesson on how unprotected sex with a priest can destroy a boy’s life. Pain oozes from his prose.

lf you don't like what l have to say, ignore me.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 14, 2018 at 17:50:00 pm

The case l cited was from 1838. The rules you complain of have been in place forever.

l don't know enough about the matter to comment, but felons have to live somewhere.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 14, 2018 at 18:06:53 pm

PB: "I was once as stupid and wrong-headed about life as you are, and probably more liberal."

As opposed to how stupid and wrong-headed you are now?

PB: "You insult women, all women, including yourself, if you are in fact a woman, when you suggest having a child, even an unwanted one, relegates them to second class citizens."

Spare me YOUR righteous indignation.

Why should any woman be FORCED to bear an unwanted child? That is the definition of forced servitude.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 14, 2018 at 18:28:52 pm

"Why should any woman be FORCED to bear an unwanted child? That is the definition of forced servitude."

Well, why should any parent, male or female, be forced to bear the costs and burdens, financial and emotional of an UNWANTED child? Seriously!

While it may be legal to put a child up for adoption, so that the freedom of the mother (and / or father) may be enhanced, would you care to argue that it is moral and proper?

There is a difference between what is legal and what is proper, n'est ce pas?
would you consider it delusional if some were to argue that post Roe there has been a subsequent (consequent?) decline in civic morality?
Yep, it may be arguable - but clearly not delusional.
Thus, the difference between "measured" exchange and an exchange of diatribes.

Over and out.
Danger Close!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 14, 2018 at 18:33:05 pm

"...but felons have to live somewhere."

Indeed, they do! But ought I be required to place my own property AND personal liberty interests at risk, not to mention that of my tenants, in order to accommodate the needs of a miscreant.
Ought i to endanger my female tenants, or children, by being compelled to "house" a sex offender?

My own choice would be NO! - irrespective of race / ethnicity.

How about you?
Willing to rent to a recently released sex offender?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 14, 2018 at 18:35:49 pm

As did the Gods of Olympus, Valhalla, Indian Gods, Native American gods and just about every other form of religion.
Perhaps, you could throw a slur in, now and again, for the Gods of the Native Americans, or Muslims - oops, I forgot, they are "protected" for their multicultural pedigrees.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 14, 2018 at 21:40:23 pm

Alana Bot is sophomoric, verbally-tedious, hackneyed and, indeed, simply boring in her repeated expressions of hatred for Christianity.

Addressing just that particular aspect of the Bot's tiresomeness, Gabe says:
"Perhaps, you could throw a slur in, now and again, for the Gods of the Native Americans, or Muslims – oops, I forgot, they are “protected” for their multicultural pedigrees."

Which brings to my mind the following anecdote:

When TS Elliot converted to Catholicism Virginia Woolf said,
"I have had a most shameful and distressing interview with dear Tom Eliot, who may be called dead to us all from this day forward. He has become an Anglo- Catholic believer in God and immortality, and goes to church. I was shocked. A corpse would seem to me more credible than he is. I mean, there’s something obscene in a living person sitting by the fire and believing in God."

Woolf was entertainingly literate and emotionally interesting in her opinion (if uninformed.) And she was not hateful.

Alana Bot's spiritual ignorance (as are her other illiteracies) is so ho-hum and filled with hate.

That is truly alarming and perhaps due to the ideological and psychological rather than the moral or intellectual origins of her idiocies.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 15, 2018 at 09:13:24 am

Gabe: "Well, why should any parent, male or female, be forced to bear the costs and burdens, financial and emotional of an UNWANTED child? Seriously!"

Two VERY different scenarios. But l'm sure you knew that from the outset.

l cannot think of any situation where a woman should be forced to bear her rapist's child to term. And society as a whole benefits from a woman's choice to abort a Down's fetus. But you seem to think that Uncle Sam -- and more specifically, YOU -- knows better.

The real difference, of course, is in the State's involvement. Women give their children up for adoption all the time. Most of the stories are heart-wrenching, but you don't mind it if people are forced by necessity to live in their cars. ¡Viva Raw Capitalism!

But they make the choice, not you.

Conservatives are shameless hypocrites. They love Big Government -- when it does their will.

Gabe: "would you consider it delusional if some were to argue that post Roe there has been a subsequent (consequent?) decline in civic morality?"

l would ask you to define terms. l would argue that any such "decline" was more directly attributable to the rise of the modern neo-conservative movement, and the selfishness in their attitude toward others. We used to believe in aiding the less-fortunate, and sound investments in the public commons. There was a common consensus that progressive taxation was needed to deter the creation of dynasties. Now, people like you don't mind kicking others like my friend Linda to the curb, and it's every man for himself.

You gave us the bloody civic abortion we call Donald Trump.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 15, 2018 at 09:34:18 am

The only duty you have is one of reasonable care.

l would challenge you to work through your attitude. How is an offender to reintegrate into society? No one will rent to him. No one will hire him. And no one will give him the mental health treatment he probably needs.

You wouldn't even rent to this guy: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/from-bank-robber-to-law-professor-a-story-of-redemption/

Why don't you just crucify him at the door to your parish church?

Other countries do it way better. But then again, they are not plagued by conservatives.

"In Norway, fewer than 4,000 of the country's 5 million people were behind bars as of August 2014.

That makes Norway's incarceration rate just 75 per 100,000 people, compared to 707 people for every 100,000 people in the US.

On top of that, when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years." [Business lnsider, 2004]

But if we tried that, Jeff Sessions and his slimy friends couldn't make outrageous profits running for-profit prisons....

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 15, 2018 at 09:54:20 am

Poooooooor Timothy. He really, really, really wants to have this discussion, but can't bring himself to do so on honorable terms.

Like a moth to the flame.... :)

T: "Alana Bot’s spiritual ignorance..."

Oh, Myyyyyy! The eternal cry of the brainwashed cultist: "Satan has deceived you!" ln his Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Walter Martin observes:

"First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by closed-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist’s mind and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization.

[A]lmost all systems of authority in cult organizations indoctrinate their disciples to believe that
anyone who opposes their beliefs cannot be motivated by anything other than satanic force or blind
prejudice and ignorance....

Experience has shown me that when this is accomplished it is the first step in a systematic
undercutting of one of the basic problems all cultists face in interpersonal contact—the problem of
hostility toward those who reject their interpretations. ...

The history of cultism generally begins with an authoritarian pronouncement on the part of the founder or founders. This in turn is institutionalized during their lifetime or after their death into a dogmatic system which requires absolute faith in the supernatural authority of those who received the initial revelation and whose writings and pronouncements are alleged to have transmitted it. ...

Thirdly, almost without exception, all cultic belief systems manifest a type of institutional
dogmatism and a pronounced intolerance for any position but their own. ...

http://www.eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Bibliotheek/Boeken/KingdomOfTheCultsWalterMartin.pdf

FWlW, Dr. Martin (who passed some time ago) was a conservative Bible scholar of some repute.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 15, 2018 at 10:25:37 am

The concept is as absurd as it is universal among primitive superstition-based religions.

Paul was making it up as he went along, borrowing liberally from the religions of the day. The Bible is not the divinely-inspired decree of the Creator(s), which begs the question of why you continue to treat it as such.

read full comment
Image of Alana
Alana
on January 15, 2018 at 10:29:00 am

“What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended.”

If, in fact, the original meaning of the text is not what the draftsmen originally intended, then one can assume that when that particular statue was drafted, there was a change in the draftsmen's intention.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on January 16, 2018 at 20:56:51 pm

I wish to apologize to all the readers of these commentaries to whom I may have offended with my vulgar and inappropriate use of language in recent days. I apologize too, to the person to whom they were directed. However, I felt it was necessary as a means of ultimately forcing restoration of some level of common civility among the commentators. And, I am relieved that not only have my inappropriate comments been deleted from these pages, but that the most offensive of the multiple inappropriate remarks; the precipitating basis of my remarks, have also been removed.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 16, 2018 at 21:23:52 pm

Paul Binotto, I regret to inform you that you are incorrect: L&L has FAILED to remove many of what you call "the most offensive of the multiple inappropriate remarks." In my opinion these so-called "inappropriate remarks'' are not merely "inappropriate;" they are nothing less than malicious attacks that needlessly provoked sharp remarks in defense of Christians. These malicious comments reflect not just a lack of religious toleration but, in my opinion, border on hatred of Christianity and personal contempt for Christian conservatives.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 16, 2018 at 21:58:02 pm

Timothy,

I appreciate your view on this and I do not entirely disagree with your assertions. However, I am satisfied to move forward anew.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 16, 2018 at 22:08:29 pm

I find very disturbing L&L's apparent indifference to (failure to monitor) recent oft-repeated verbal abuse of Christianity and Christians, abuse that in my opinion was driven by invidious hatred of persons of faith because of their faith.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 17, 2018 at 06:35:49 am

Timothy,

Firstly, please call me Paul. I share your concerns, and agree with you about what motivates the person who makes these religious slurs.

I, of course, also would prefer all the mean-spirited religious comments be removed, but find it a consolation that if they remain, they remain a reminder and a lasting testament to the true character of their author. And, as only the author knows who she or he really is, to her or him, they will remain as the greatest reminder.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on January 18, 2018 at 17:25:18 pm

Paul,
Read this article in today's National Review online about abortion. It's as thoughtful an analysis as I've read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455530/march-life-message-fetus-living-human-organism-dont-kill-it-ever?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-01-18&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on January 18, 2018 at 17:53:27 pm

Thanks, Timothy, for linking me to this article. It really is a thoughtful analysis; and it really is just that simple as the author states!

And, to those Feminist and Progressives who should make the argument that because a man’s genitalia is placed on the outside of his body, that this automatically places him outside of the abortion debate, because he cannot know what it means to be a woman. I would caution them then, to take care, for by this same logic, the argument cannot in turn, also be made that a transgender female can become a woman.

Abortion is not a woman's right issue, it is a human right's issue. And, as Kevin D. Williamson says, "You mustn’t kill your children." *

*Source: www.nationalreview.com/article/455530/march-life-message-fetus-living-human-organism-dont-kill-it-ever?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-01-18&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.